Here we go: US politicans call for Ed Snowden to be extradited - Polidicks

Its a funny time we are living in. Is this the start of something where we end up living in a sanitized society like that of a sci-fi film or just more of the same crap. I saw an interesting interview with the Iranian premier about the illusion of freedom and I must admit, it made me wonder how free we are. On a side note I had my door kicked in by the police 6 weeks ago because of the site I have up that jokes about religion. This week I find out if they will charge me with inciting hatred. These are sad times.

Proponents of the "nothing to hide" argument please go here: [url]https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/[/url]

[QUOTE=CheesyTits;40982550]Proponents of the "nothing to hide" argument please go here: [url]https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/[/url][/QUOTE] What about the argument that lawyers are saying that the NSA's actions were fully legal, and that deliberately leaking classified documents in violation of a sworn oath is espionage? 'Nothing to hide' is not the main argument here.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40982737]What about the argument that lawyers are saying that the NSA's actions were fully legal, and that deliberately leaking classified documents in violation of a sworn oath is espionage? 'Nothing to hide' is not the main argument here.[/QUOTE] If it is legal, it is moral. That must be a very comfortable world to live in.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;40982947]If it is legal, it is moral.[/QUOTE] I never equated the two. Regardless of how I feel about the NSA's actions in this, the fact is that if what the NSA was doing is legal, then what he's done is deliberately leak classified documents pertaining to national security. That's espionage, no matter how justified he thought it was. A federal contractor or employee doesn't have the right to freely give out any sensitive information he wants just because he morally disagrees with the contents. That's not what whistleblowing is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40981716]Actually it's more like if you deliberately violate the laws you swore a binding oath to uphold, you're guilty of espionage and get punished accordingly, regardless of your reasons. There is protection for whistleblowers if they go through the right channels. Publicly releasing classified information and going to the media is not the right channel.[/QUOTE] No its more like them absorbing so much information that if you even register a bit of suspicion as being anti-government they scrutinize your whole life. [img]http://i.imgur.com/kbGCt8r.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40983270]No its more like them absorbing so much information that if you even register a bit of suspicion as being anti-government they scrutinize your whole life.[/QUOTE] That's completely irrelevant to the charge of espionage for leaking classified documents. He's not being pursued because he was accidentally called by someone on a watch list and the NSA decided they had it in for him. And is there a single piece of evidence backing up this allegation? Recording who called whom (and not even the contents of that conversation) is a far cry from total surveillance of every action.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40983314]That's completely irrelevant to the charge of espionage for leaking classified documents. He's not being pursued because he was accidentally called by someone on a watch list and the NSA decided they had it in for him. And is there a single piece of evidence backing up this allegation? Recording who called whom (and not even the contents of that conversation) is a far cry from total surveillance of every action.[/QUOTE] Well first of all yes, he did break the oath and technically that is why he is being pursued. But he broke the oath because of this information. Ask yourself two things; 1. Do you really think that, by using the 'proper whistleblower channels', the information would ever get out? I assume not because he worked in the intelligence sector and he must've known about these 'channels', there must be a reason he didn't use them. Maybe he knew that that course is iffy at best. 2.What would it take for a man who has a over-paying job, and a paradise life in Hawaii, to leave that job and become a fugitive? Lastly: Most conversations are recorded by default. They are all accessible in retrospect. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHZrVPt4-U[/media]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40983498]1. Do you really think that, by using the 'proper whistleblower channels', the information would ever get out? I assume not because he worked in the intelligence sector and he must've known about these 'channels', there must be a reason he didn't use them. Maybe he knew that that course is iffy at best.[/QUOTE] No, I don't think the information would get out immediately. I think with an active whistleblower taking the matter to an oversight committee, the program would be quietly abandoned when it became apparent that it could cause a scandal, and then decades from now would eventually be declassified and added to the history books. That's how whistleblowing within the intelligence community is supposed to work, because there is no way for it to 'get out' without compromising national security. There is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act]plenty of legal protection[/url] for whistleblowers written into our laws. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40983498]2.What would it take for a man who has a over-paying job, and a paradise life in Hawaii, to leave that job and become a fugitive?[/QUOTE] Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire construction magnate and left that opulent life to become a fugitive. How dedicated someone is to a cause has no bearing on how just it is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40983962]No, I don't think the information would get out immediately. I think with an active whistleblower taking the matter to an oversight committee, the program would be quietly abandoned when it became apparent that it could cause a scandal, and then decades from now would eventually be declassified and added to the history books. That's how whistleblowing within the intelligence community is supposed to work, because there is no way for it to 'get out' without compromising national security. [/quote] I still think he as an informed intelligence personelle has/had a good reason why he didn't go through those channels. [quote] Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire construction magnate and left that opulent life to become a fugitive. How dedicated someone is to a cause has no bearing on how just it is.[/QUOTE] So are you saying his cause is un-just? I don't understand. I think we might be talking past each other slightly. I think ultimately he was ethically right in his actions.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40983270]No its more like them absorbing so much information that if you even register a bit of suspicion as being anti-government they scrutinize your whole life. [img]http://i.imgur.com/kbGCt8r.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] what is he talking about? no one to date has ever been convicted, or charged, with just information gathered by the NSA. additionally, you can't be charged with a crime with evidence gathered by a secret program against you in a court of law. you're not going to be hauled off by some secret police who gathered information about you to use as evidence via a top-secret government program. [editline]10th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40984134]I still think he as an informed intelligence personelle has/had a good reason why he didn't go through those channels. So are you saying his cause is un-just? I don't understand. I think we might be talking past each other slightly. I think ultimately he was ethically right in his actions.[/QUOTE] We don't even know if this guy is telling the truth because we can't verify what he is saying. We can't even verify if he has actually worked for the NSA.

[QUOTE=Foda;40984315] We don't even know if this guy is telling the truth because we can't verify what he is saying. We can't even verify if he has actually worked for the NSA.[/QUOTE] You're right, this whole this must be a ruse.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40984386]You're right, this whole this must be a ruse.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that, but I think it's unwise to believe everything this guy is saying. We must remain skeptical of both sides, and only make decisions and claims after we have irrefutable information.

[QUOTE=Foda;40984529]I'm not saying that, but I think it's unwise to believe everything this guy is saying. We must remain skeptical of both sides, and only make decisions and claims after we have irrefutable information.[/QUOTE] Right, but the government hasn't even denied it, they're just pissed off because we are talking about it. Obama himself stated this was "Hype" instead of saying it is 'false'.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40984716]Right, but the government hasn't even denied it, they're just pissed off because we are talking about it. Obama himself stated this was "Hype" instead of saying it is 'false'.[/QUOTE] they clarified a bit in a press statement: [url]http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Facts%20on%20the%20Collection%20of%20Intelligence%20Pursuant%20to%20Section%20702.pdf[/url] Are they lying about what they're doing? It's possible, but so far we don't even have the rest of those leaked slides, and for all we know they could be stating exactly what this statement says.

[QUOTE=Foda;40984903]they clarified a bit in a press statement: [url]http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Facts%20on%20the%20Collection%20of%20Intelligence%20Pursuant%20to%20Section%20702.pdf[/url] Are they lying about what they're doing? It's possible, but so far we don't even have the rest of those leaked slides, and for all we know they could be stating exactly what this statement says.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/30c1w7s.jpg[/IMG] Link is down